Well WYSIWYG IS the problem.
For eyxample the Ironclad Dreadnought. It is a FF Dreadnought where the "generic" AC&PF Dreadnought is a shooty&CC Dreadnought. And that is WHY you can really have one Dreadnought for each specific role:
Shooty = Hellfire Dreadnought (Twin Lascannon&Missile Launcher)
FF = Ironclad Dreadnought (Hurricane Bolter)
CCMW = Furioso Dreadnought (2 x Powerfist)
FFMW = Vulcan Dreadnought (Multi-melta)
Shooty&CC = Generic Dreadnought (AssaultCannon&Powerfist)
Shooty&FF = Siege Dreadnought (Flamers)

And thats only for Dreadnoughts. You could expand this for Infantry and non-Walker Armoured Vehicles (which are faster).
And that for EVERY race in the Wh40k universe.

And for you example with the Thunderhawk.
Strictly speacing it should have 3DC and Armour 5+ but i guess decreasing it to 2DC will put the Armour to 4+RA.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

BL - for the record, you've brought this idea up at least twice before and all times it's not been taken on board.

To be honest, I don't see any real need to try and fix any supposed weaknesses in Epic's air game.
The game works well enough as it is (well for me at least). I really wish people would hold back on trying to make Epic into a more comlicated game. It's one of the best game systems I've played (in over 30 years of rolling dice and moving miniatures around tables).

For what it's worth...

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I always bring it up because it fills a hole in the capabilities some units are supposed to have.
For example: Formations of transport vehicles who can't transport anycing because they aren't WE (Land Raiders)?
Transport aircrafts acting as Skimmers is one more of these issuses which by rationality these units SHOULD be capable of but aren't allowed by the Epic rules.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

WYSIWYG is only a problem because you assume E:A should be WYSIWYG.

If it where up to me, there would be 3 dreadnought. A shooty one (2 shooty weapons), an assault one (shooty weapon+CC weapon) and a siege one (2 CC weapons), and every model would use one of the three statlines. I don't think the difference between a chainsfist, a powerfist and a siege ram should be relevant in epic. I'd love to have ram or powerdrill equipped dread models in a siege themed army, but I would be happy to use the same statline as any other 2 CC weapon equipped dread. I could do perfectly with only 3 statlines for landraider. Standard, Assault (count as crusader, increased transport capacity and decreased shooting) and possibly support (count as helios, less transport, more firepower). Actually I could even do with only the 2 first. I love having redeemer models but I wouldn't be frustrated to have them count as "Assault land raiders".

I love cool models but the need for the statline to accurately reflect each details is very 28mm minded (and even there, I tend to think it's more of a way to sell more models than anything else really). I don't know (nor care) what to think of WYSIWYG in 40K those days since I didn't play that game in 15 years, but I know that in Epic I think it's mostly rule clutter. And when it come to rules, E:A should refer to the background and translate it as adequately as it can with regards to the gameplay.

40K stats are only useful as to what they may tell us of the intended background, role and ability of the unit.

As a voicy participant in the original discussion to give TH 4+ RA (that's why I chose this example above), I assure you that the 40K statline (FW statline are not official anyway) was way behind in our concern compared to the game play, the intended use of the unit and its depiction in background.

Or else, just make the Warhound plasma blastgun a TK weapon as it should, make the thunderhawk 3DC, 5+ no RA, 30 men capacity, etc... and reprice them accordingly because IT IS AS THEY SHOULD BE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS IN 40K.

But really, quite apart from the statline thingy, which as I already stated is a battle I lost many years ago anyway, inspiring the E:A rules mechanisms from the 40K one is just as bad a design principle as we could get.


Edit : (avoiding double post)


Sums up our differences of point of view quite nicely really. You call what they are allowed to do in an apocalypse game "Rationality".
Being able to hover in place so as to be able to drop troops quickly is not the same as being able to skim the ground like a wave serpent. I refer to the idea, you refer to the 40K rule set.

I'll let it at that, as I said I understand my way of seeing this is out of fashion, and I don't enjoy casting myself in this grumpy, bitter old timer role one bit. I'll just play my own set of rules, just like many gaming groups already do. After all, I'm not a tournament player, what am I doing outside of the painting forum ?



edit : sorry, I just feel the urge to edit as I see mistakes, typos, missing words...

Well it`s alot of grey scale here. One extreme is making up the states out of thin air only based on fluff ressources and the other extreme is a 1:1 translation of Wh40k stats.
But every one of us has a viewpoint positioned between this extremes in various shades of grey and thats where those differences in the view of unit capabilitis come.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Personally, I like new Land Raiders for one simple reason.

Do you know how many plastic Land Raiders I have? It's not healthy. I'd be behind Rhino variants, too. Dreadnoughts...I'm not so sure why we need so many of them. Things people have models for or can easily convert models for, it makes sense to add. Things we have to make models for, not so much.

That said, you're completely right regarding the whole thing about rules: we shouldn't be trying to base the effects of our rules of the effects of 40K's. Possibly we should be trying to imitate their intention, but no more.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

You misunderstood my point. I love all the new cool land raider variants, and I am trying to get or model a usable amount of just every variant. I just think Rule-wise, they should "count as" 3 variant statline at the maximum.

I'd LOVE to have a Land Raider Prometheus model, I love the concept and think it looks gorgeous, but I think it would be better if it was just a model, representing a LR with a commander or even just any Land raiders.

Since I started Epic in SM1 days, and never sold/traded any of my epic stuff, I easily get your point about wanting to go for cool modeling projects with rhinos and land raiders. But I don't see how not having a specific statline should forbid us to make or use cool models. I love land raider variants, I just think WYSIWYG is useless rule clutter originating in a wh40K mindset.

I am of the opinion that a bit more abstraction regarding statlines and a bit less nitpicking about exact 40K ruleset would actually benefit the game and its lists quite a lot.

I love all the models and would happily collect formations of many variants, but I still don't think that the one model = one statline is a good thing for epic.
For example, I love the unofficial epic supplements, I love oogling at the cool models, the texts are great, the background is very good, artwork is great and the production looks very professional, I'm happy to have new statline for new (or very updated) units like the Gorgon or the Macharius (yes, that is heartfelt compliment for all those who participated in their making ! the result is very good indeed, whatever my feelings about "WYSIWYGness"), but I really would rather have all Leman russes variants abstracted in a handful of statlines, say 5 types at most.
In 40k, I didn't count them but I'm sure there are around 10 variants, only counting main gun variations.
Vanilla, demolisher, vanquisher, exterminator, executioner, thunderer, destroyer, punisher, eradicator, yeah 9 already. Now depending on the sponsons, should we really have around 15 or 20 statlines for this hull ?
Then, we could have a 'pint mounted storm bolter" and a "hunter seeker missile" upgrade etc...

I also like, in any scale or universe setting, how the modelling side can partially disconnect from the list and allow you to have a themed army without the need for it to necessarily imply a special list and specific statline. The equivalent in 40K scale would be special rules for MK6 "corvus" helmets and such stuff. Who knows, someone somewhere probably already did that anyway...

I agree the current air rules aren't perfect in some respects but I think they should be left as is. If people want to work up unofficial/alternative ones up and stick them in a supplement which features lots of aircraft as optional alternative rules then fine, but the negatives to trying to change them officially massively outway any positives and I really hope that's not the road you're trying to go down here! It's good to have stability and consistency in the core rules played around the world and over time.

just back from the Epic-UK GT and to be honest I don't think there was a consesus view for change in the air rules. For every proponent there was a player with opposite view, and the general feeling was that the air rules are fine and probably don't need changing.

That was my impression of people's feelings on the matter, too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

So they like to continue to use the AA-Umbrella and have no problem with this? Or aren't they even aware that under some interpretation of the rules the AA-umbrella is possible?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Flak rush is just as strange as AA umbrella.
Well, so be it.
I guess I didn't expect a mechanism that people are used to to be changed, Air AA castles and flak rush probably look quite normal to many (as opposed to, for example, marines fighting alongside titans. Now, THAT is strange.)

Some are for immediate disengagement, some are against. But consensus is generally that the current system does work okayish...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The current system works. There is no argument that it doesn't.
The question is: Does it work in the way that it is sensible? Is it realistic enough or so abstract that it is unrealistic (even for a sci-fi war game)?
For me the AA-Umbrella and the Flak-Rush are unrealistic (even for a sci-fi war game).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/